Criteria for evidence of a God.

Post Reply New Topic

Because no one's ever successfully violated causality.

or to put it in another way, is there actually evidence or proof of it, if there is, I'm sure it would be very interesting, but show it please.


I'm afraid that wouldn't be enough, any detailed source of information would be appreciated.

It takes millions of pounds of pressure and a lot of heat to make diamonds. People living tortured and broken lives here - especially those who refuse to cave in to negativity and keep a stiff upper lip for everyone else around them - I think its the same idea.

That sort of God could be the exact loving God people talk about but is willing to be sadistic enough to let people run amok and torture/butcher/rape/murder other people here for the fact that in comparison the the broader reality in that case - 70 or 80 years means almost nothing and our urgency is based on our being forced into a world where we have no knowledge of anything outside of it.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 15 Dec 2008, 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Right. My buddy's analogy with dating: whenever he did anything decisive, did something he wanted to do, handled things on his own terms; it fell apart. When he looked at a myriad of choices and found himself making decisions or moves that seemed almost unlike him and had him questioning later on why he even did them (they were out of form) those were the times where good situations came to him. From then on he's noticed that it works this way consistently, so far without exception.

I know I'm using mostly dating examples here but when you think about it - relationships as such are, if not the core, one of the largest pillars of our existence and in an area where almost nothing works rationally. Stories like that guy in California who left for work and had his whole family killed by a military plane who crashed, things like that are a little bit more rare, but on the other side a lot of people also have hopes and dreams in the arts - those most often are dashed similarly by luck, friends with connections flaking out on them, really stupid things happening; life's full of that.

Or he just doesn't like us very much or displays the same lack of caring for lesser creatures you find even among people here who believe like on meat farms the ends justify the means.

It's quite convenient to attribute all good things to Gods love and all negative things to being tested or improved through perseverance.

It's just as likely that all the negative things in your life is something akin to God burning ants with a magnifying glass and the positive things are just when he's not looking.

Both theories cannot be proven or disproven so hold equal weight.

okay ignatius loyola.

I think part of the first adaption is people would rather be upright and strong than suicidal. So much of life is really attitude adjustment.

Eh like I said I tend to believe there is no god but if I did I'd have to think he was a jerk. I still wouldn't be suicidal though.

Even the bible can't seem to decide if he's wrathful or peace, love and unicorn farts so I'm just wondering why people who do believe always seem to believe he's this great infallible guy.

Doesn't that kind of prove that he's more a psychological crutch than anything else?

Well, its really saying that he's both and that if he's an a***hole he'd deliberate. The whole story of 'God created Lucifer...Lucifer turned a third of the heavenly host...' blehblehbleh; if he's omniscient, all knowing - by that logic he knew exactly what he created and what he created is serving its purpose so its really his action (and that's *if* his existence is anything more than metaphorical).

I know as an atheist that kind of thought process has to sound like "Hmmm...so if the Easterbunny exists...and eggs show up hidden, that must mean that the bunny's related to a major farming outlet...hmmm....who's charitably sponsering all of this? Is government funding it?". It does drive us to pursue a different angle, which means that it has us asking questions that answer us. In a sense we all start with what we intuitively feel and work our way outward.

What I'm guessing with you, from what your saying about your own case of atheism, you had to stare what you 'felt' in the face - you probably felt more religious than anything - and had to stamp it out as garbage because it flew in the face of the facts and you wanted to be in control of it for the sake of truth; otherwise I doubt you'd be this adamantly against it. I had the same scenario, from what I'd been through in life and wanting to steal all illusions (knowing they only lead to hurt) I went about brutally crushing them and taking the truth wherever it would lead. I did that, it worked out fine, I was right on the edge of atheist/agnostic. However lots of things came up that I just didn't get. My point of reference - from what I could see of how the world operated (this could be a parting difference between our spheres of thought) was that for some odd reason people who worshipped the Easterbunny or Santa Clause (Jesus) understood that the UN was f'd, understood that the war on terror was a fight for our liberties and against the solopsism of religion (and I didn't get it, I would have thought the atheists would have *loved* the War on Terror, not as a means of stamping out one particular religion but would be horrified and be smacking their fists on their palms ready to beat the hell out of anyone who wanted to tell them how to think or especially who'd coerce their one life without anything to live for aside from their own self-actualization; people don't work like that at all I found and it really messed with me). So part of it was, on many levels, the religious right made all kinds of worldly sense where the atheists and the left were largely represented by 9/11 truthers, conspiracy theorists, people who believed that if we weakened the U.S. as a power the world would like us, people who believed we should sabotage our energy self-sufficiency for the sake of some very sketchy 'global warming' theory - its like those who had thrown away the ultimate solipsism of religion were actually making far worse choices and making the world much worse through fighting the people who were trying to do what made sense which was fight what was trying to steal the rights of those who, I thought enlightened, would absolutely be adamant about the future and having freedom and liberty strictly move forward.

I think human behavior and the general value of groups was one of my larger clinchers, I couldn't understand the organized psychosis of it and I really felt like I was living on a planet of freaks in that regard. After that the contingencies went even farther, I knew there were bigger and deeper answers, I knew there had to be some broader organization, I just couldn't understand it because I couldn't relate to anything I was seeing.



It can look that way but his occasional use as such still says no more or less for or against his existence than the fact that evolution occured. The religious have a context to place their existence in, the atheists of the world don't. Neither can disprove the other, if the religious made the jab that atheists just want freedom to sin - more than half the time that's way off point and has nothing to do with the larger reason or worth, if atheists say that religions just opium for the masses - they're missing the fact that its not always the case as much as they're missing that saying that really means nothing. I can understand people's desire to base it all on their takes on human outcome and human behavior, as I wrote before I did a lot of that myself. However, I do think its a mistake to shave off every other possibility. I could be a ludite, I'm willing to accept that I could be wrong, but I still think we have a ways to go and a few things to explain such as where the heck the universe really came from, what's really out there, what's really going on at the quantum physics level of things, how many more connections and theories does science still have to pursue; the evidence out there right now really, for most people, rests on knife's edge and one can just as easily go either way - atheist, theist, people diss them because they think its a human weakness to be noncommittal but on a factual basis I think agnostics have it clostest to pegged; I just lean to the theist side on my own inclinations and how I piece the flow of things together.

Actually I think most atheists understand that for the most part in practice religion is mostly harmless unless taken to extremes and dislike it purely on principle (the belief that someone else should have the authority to tell you what to think and the long term effect that has on people who end up never learning to make their own decisions).

The reason a lot of us are opposed to the "War on Terror" in my opinion is because in many way's it is like a religion itself in that it is trying to make people think and believe what our leaders want us to by tossing around the threat of terrorists and fear much like the threat of demons did in the middle ages. Much like the "War on Demons and Witchcraft" that occurred then though we see how it can be misused as a tool against anyone the powers that be dislike. Call them a terrorist and everyone will rally behind you to destroy them even if their only real crime was disagreeing with you in a war that has no clear objective or enemy and as such will never end until all dissenters are disposed of much like the cleansing programs of the Third Reich.

In theory fighting terrorism is a good thing we can support but in practice it's only created something much more dangerous.

Why should we support the killing of religious people? Most of them are innocent bystanders and killing them has no effect on the religion itself except to make it's followers more desperate and dangerous.

As for God being the cause of all fortune and misfortune he would have to violate causality to do that unless he made every future decision for you at the creation of the universe in which case there is no free will so it's a contradiction not to mention it kind of makes the whole heaven/hell thing pointless since he decided where you would go before you were ever born.

Yeah, still can't get my head around that, I guess more because I haven't been able to either establish a nefarious intent on the part of our leadership or see where it was cart blanch for trying to eradicate another religion rather than cleaning up those who where already holding tyranny over these countries and holding other Muslim's hostage. It would be like if Westboro Baptists multiplied, became 30% minority, like in Iran held us up to biblical code with machine guns and religious police, stoned women to death for wearing makeup, tortured anyone for being caught with vices or not listening to Christian music - if I were in an America like that, if I'd somehow been able to get my head around state-run television; I'd be far more than happy if Britain, Australia, Canada, any combination of the three came in and liberated us and if Westboro's had attacked their people I think they'd have every right if our problem with them was completely out of our control. That wouldn't be them trying to eradicate Christianity, it would be cleaning up a clear and present danger to other countries set forth by a spreading religious supremecism that threatened the liberties of these countries and in the case of inflamation their physical and economic safety rather directly.



Its the idea that God exists outside of time, part of how the seeming wrecklessness toward us happens (seeming). The way I've heard it explained by some is that everything whether 25 billion years ago, today, or 25 billion years in the future, exists in in the same moment for him. Its kind of like him building a wild 3 dimensional sculputure with billions if not trillions of ball-bearing tracks (think of them as having many trapdoors and many fulcrums that can change path and even nudge sometimes 2, 3, 100, depending on species, other bearings into play); in that sense, that kind of apparatus you can do one of two things - either drop the first bearing in yourself (ie. the idea of an unmoved mover creating the first cell) or you can also figure that it has a pinball coil at the beginning (nature seeming to create the first cell but under situations of the impossible and the first cell even seemingly impossible).

My own sense of this really isn't fixed, more or less I go with what makes sense. In the end, I think it most likely that God *wants* this situation, wants no undeniable proof of himself, and yes, part of that is a test to see if we can live ethically in that sort of blur or with no reprocussion in certainty hanging over our heads. Quite likely many atheists as well will die, find themselves in a strange place, and really wondering "Ummmm....heaven....how the hell did I get here?" Answer being - they lived virtuously, meant well, God knew the situation he created, they were necessary in smoothing out history, humans seem to learn from the extreme which is why the middle-ages and Inquisitions happened, and yep - they played their part as intended. He might bust our balls while we're here but it makes no sense that the here-after would be as Calvinistic. Many people also, more and more, are of the conclusion that when the bible says that people can only come to God through Jesus that it doesn't mean that they have to be declared Christian's so much as its an acknowledgment of what his death on the cross meant. Not to even say that Christianity has so much more proof than anything else, just that for my own observations of the worldly I've seen a lot of strange things in the human condition that point out that Judaism and Christianity have far more impact than the effects of their followers and things seem to flow right along in a rather uncanny vain (ie. hatred of Israel, hatred of Christians in the U.S., a culture of liberty and freedom built on good intent rather than being face-centered, a lot of things are very aberrant and unusual)

The problem is that while specific individuals may have good intentions the group as a whole is not so easily judged. Government power should not be granted based on the honor system because as I said specific individuals or even the majority may have good intentions but it only takes one person entering the group with poor intentions to exploit those powers to disastrous effect.



People act rationally groups of people act irrationally, leading to unusual behavior and results. That's not evidence of anything except that even the most peaceful gathering can be incited into a lynch mob due to human psychology or vice versa.

Any time large numbers of people are gathered under a belief system and work towards a common goal your going to get results on a scale much larger than what can be accomplished by any single person or disorganized group. Of course these results are not always positive such as using the faithful as slave labor, crusades, jihadic wars, terrorism, etc. Again that doesn't mean anything in reference to religion because the same effect is found in armies and riotous mobs.

What still blows my mind are people who'll sit back, calculate, and do anything to push something through - not on the basis that it works (I often think that they know it won't) but that their higher ideals matter more than 'does it work'. The greater evils in this world are almost always never straight out called what they are and most often those leading it even have themselves convinced that they're of good intent. People are bizarre, I think when they're most vulnerable is when they're already at wits end in they're ready for anything.

You have still the same big lies (the ones that are told all the same all over the globe) and people seem to sort out the exact same way. Being off point seems like it should be in dissaray, on the other hand it seems like it happens almost in lockstep - that could be the broader 'movement' but if that's the case people have some strange subscriptions.


You have brought up good points so I'm glad you hung in with this. I still think where we're at, and its where all theists and atheists are - neither side can shut the other down and it takes intellectual honesty to admit it. What you said about some people twisting religion into evil - I hardly think there's anyone who would disagree that its absolutely disgusting when it happens; an atheist, a deist, a theist, anyone who's paying attention to the greater good in any capacity. That said though - a better world entirely without religion? Entirely? That still sounds like a U.S. government with 100% Republican or Democrat seats or a Parliament with only Tories or Labor. At least well thought-out clashes tend to be the sort of creative destruction of old ideas giving way to new that keeps our progress going forward.


I think the only question I have to ask you, purely out of curiosity. As an atheist, if you wanted the society to have positive norms, be as close to at peace as you could have it, and have a system that worked - what ways would you chose to enforce or at least teach cohesive societal values? What kind of thing do you think would work as a standing point of reference?

Well not entirely I suppose some people do need religion on a personal level and while it would be great if we could teach them and give them the mental strength, self esteem and fortitude to live without it we're probably always going to fail some people. In general though elimination of the easily abused power of religious institutions to move large numbers of people towards evil ends and justifying behavior that could be justified in no other way would benefit society overall.




I don't really understand the question but I think you're basically asking "How do we teach morality without religion?".

That's easy it basically teaches itself through interaction with society as a whole, the law, your parents and peers, and other individuals the only reference point we really need is "what is right and wrong at this point in time, should it be changed and how does society feel about it?".

It once was that those who disagreed with the moral code of a society could leave that society and join another or live alone that choice is not viable anymore. The only way to eliminate the problems associated with forcing individuals to adhere to a moral code they disagree with now is to allow different countries and regions to develop their own individual codes free from the homogenizing effects of global religion. Give people alternatives and "moral Darwinism" for lack of a better term (the idea that in free societies the "best" moral code will thrive while others will die out) and humanity will have room to grow and improve itself.

And that's the only part I can't agree with, you speak with absolute certainty that its a crutch for people who just need to be rehabilitated. The other 80 or 90% of the population that disagrees with you on that would tell you that you have no basis aside from possibly blinders that you enforce on your own sense of perspective.




Lets pretend that society, instead of being 3 billion techsteps and 3 billion frayas, is made up of the same motley mess that it is now. You would think, coming from our own standpoint and us having inherently strong ethical compasses, that it would work that way. Its not reality at all though.



When I site people's oddities, there was a really good example I heard tonight. I was at a Medved book-signing event out this way and Mike gave a short speech. Said something that reminded me, I've heard this in the past and while its a generality and doesn't apply to all it still seems to fit the 80/20 rule well enough - people who don't worship the big 'g' (God) worship the little 'g' (government); I've also heard Horowitz mention, totally agreeing with my own observations as well, that most people who scrap religion rather than being authentic atheists end up inflicting fantasy on something else - whether political, whether environmental, its always something.

As you mentioned, when you get crowds together or someone with such a driven and urgent fantasy to sell to others - whether they're adamant believers in it or whether they just wan't power and influence - dischord is very organic and happens very easily, very naturally. I have a hard time not thinking that if we did have an atheist world with different continents adhering to their own moral code you would see those codes coming unglued into rather angular agendas, those agendas peeling away from reality, and countries would be warring still; especially if one felt that the rest were doing something that deeply effected it like it had too many cows giving off methane which they felt would bring about an environmental apocalypse.

Your right that to have everyone glued to an ethical code that you need authority and authority needs to be respected. However, to those who don't really get it or don't think like we do - will it be fear of physical harm or imprisonment keeping them from just lying, cheating, stealing, and taking what they want? The idea sounds great in theory, maybe it wouldn't be hugely different from the world we have today (though we'd really need a lot written and probably spend k-12 one hour per day on 'why not to commit genocide' - it would be almost necessary).

Just because the majority believes something doesn't make it true.

In any case you state that I am overestimating people and that without religion they would all go on rampages. Well maybe I am overestimating them in that I believe that anyone can be strong enough to stand on their own without religion to lean on and give them a sense of purpose and I'm probably wrong and that more than I think can't live without it but is that any worse than what your doing by basically underestimating them to the point where you believe that they would act like animals and require daily reminders and years of training not to commit genocide?

I've always felt it is better to push a person to find their limits rather than tell them what their limits are and have them never reach their full potential.